By Tom Quiner

The rest of the media is catching up with Quiner’s Diner.


Last week, we wrote about the explosion of new government jobs under the Obama administration at the same time employment in the private sector has plummeted.

We wrote about how these government jobs are overwhelmingly directed to government unions who overwhelmingly support one political party (here’s a clue: it’s not the Republicans).

We wrote about how these government union jobs enjoy wages and perks that far surpass the private sector.

This story has finally trickled down to the Drudge Report.  Here was their headline today:

“Obama redistribution victory:  private pay plummets, government handouts soar.”

Here was a headline on the Des Moines Register this morning:  “Federal work force isn’t facing cutbacks like private sector.”

Here was the USA Today’s headline:  “Private pay shrinks to historic lows as gov’t payouts rise.”

The USA today quoted University of Michigan economist, Donald Grimes who said: “the trend is not sustainable.  Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all.  This is really important,” Grimes says.

The Register stated that “average compensation for federal civilian workers increased nearly twice as much as did the private sector from 2000 to 2008.”  When you include all their perks and wages, the average federal civilian worker earns $119,982.

President Obama plans to add 274,000 MORE full-time civilian workers to the Executive Branch, HIS branch alone, by 2011.  That doesn’t include the rest of the government.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reveal that private sector, construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000 jobs in February. Even worse, the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs.  On the other hand, government jobs continued to explode with 9000 new jobs in the same time period along with another 26,000 jobs in the education and health service fields.

The Obama/Pelosi/Reid team are pursuing a conscious course of action:  to redistribute wealth.  One of the savviest ways to do it is to transfer it to government unions who pay them back with campaign contributions and votes at election time. In fairness, that’s politics.  But it comes at a price.  The folks who pay the bills, namely the entrepreneurs and employees of America’s small businesses, have to sacrifice even more to support folks who live much better than they do.

Are you okay with that?

No Comments

  1. Paul Sharp on May 27, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    The growth of government jobs is disturbing. I believe this administration and many in congress do not trust private enterprise; they believe government should control all activities. Somewhere years ago I read words to the effect that a capitalist is a person who pursues with relentless zeal the maximization of production with minimum consumption. Socialists recoil at that idea; they believe all private enterprise activities are inherently evil, based on greed.

    In addition to growth in government payroll jobs, we are experiencing government control of industries through subsidies to selected enterprises. For example, consider the wind power industry. We are told that we must implement alternative energy to combat global warming, and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I have no quarrel with striving to achieve energy use efficiency and reducing our dependence on foreign oil (global warming is another matter), but is wind energy the answer? I don’t think so. Consider the following:
    • The Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2007 Federal subsidies for electrical energy production were $23.37 per megawatt hour for wind energy compared to 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and petroleum, 67 cents for hydropower and $1.59 for nuclear.
    • Iowa Utilities Board electrical energy production data shows the following: wind energy production factors of 26.9% and 17.5% for 2007 and 2008 respectively and the contribution by wind power to the total electrical energy produced in Iowa was 5.54% and 7.69% for 2007 and 2008 respectively
    • The low production factors and random, intermittent nature of wind power does not reduce the need for conventional power plants. Operating a coal plant at “idle” when wind power is available must surely reduce “coal to wire” efficiency; i.e. amount of coal consumed per unit of electrical energy produced increases.
    • The Institute for Energy Research reports the following:
    o Denmark, often touted as an example of wind power benefits, generally operates their conventional power plants at full capacity because of the intermittency of wind power generation. When wind power is generated it is often sold at a discounted price as surplus energy.
    o Spain heavily subsidizes their wind power industry to attract investors and compete against other sources of power. The “green jobs” agenda of the Spanish government has not created jobs; for each green megawatt of wind electrical energy created, 4.27 jobs were lost.
    • The Iowa Power Fund contributed two million one hundred thousand dollars ($2,100,000) to the TPI plant in Newton to “foster mass production of wind turbines in Iowa”. In mid- May TPI laid off over 200 employees at their Newton plant. (Just what the city of Newton needed; our tax dollars at work, huh?)

    I am not okay with the current attack on private enterprise; the battle of socialism vs. freedom is underway.

  2. Tom Maly on May 29, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    Thanks for the blog! You are the bloggER –i am a REAL novice “blogIE!” Register, eat your hearts out; There loss! i am in awe of your writing and the amount of work those writings represent.
    My wife and i are both retired federal employees. We both made decent salaries and are blessed with generous albeit not extravagant retirement monies. Because of the aforementioned, i am writing in response to this post.
    It is my perhaps naive impression that a great deal of the economic chaos in Greece and other European countries has to do with the practice of being “overly generous” to government employees. That is not even taking into account states e.g. California and others (?) where again i believe the above issue creates or adds to the deficits they are encountering.
    My notion is as follows: What if a plan was devised, agreed upon and implemented where for one year, every government provided “pay” at every level of government, national, state, county, municipal would be frozen?! NO ONE gets an increase. By pay, i refer to salary, social security (retirement/SSDI/SSI) V.A. benefits (pensions as well as compensation beneficiaries), all federal CSRS retirees – Basically, anyone who gets a fed government award/monies. Include postal workers in the above. If there are other “quasi” government employees/retirees, the same applies.
    At the state/county/municipality level the same would apply….no increase in any salary or retirement checks….including schools or other institutions/agencies/service providers who are expending the taxpayers money.
    The who project could be called, “Freedom 2012” or 13 or whatever single year was agreed upon! i can’t help but believe that IF all checks were “frozen,” it would have to be a considerable amount of money involved.

Leave a Comment